The Good, Bad and Ugly in Trump's New Budget

President Donald Trump's 2026 "skinny budget" is out, and at first glance it gives small-government advocates reason to cheer. It proposes deep cuts to domestic agencies, calls for eliminating redundant programs and gestures toward reviving federalism by shifting power and responsibility back to the states. It promises to slash overreaching "woke" initiatives, end international handouts and abolish bureaucracies that have outlived their usefulness.

But this budget is more rhetorical than revolutionary. As impressive as Trump's envisioned cuts are -- $163 billion worth -- they lose luster because the version of the budget being considered in Congress also calls for increases to defense and border security spending, as well as the extension of the 2017 tax cuts. And for all its fiery declarations, the budget fails to truly confront the drivers of our fiscal crisis.

The budget does, thankfully, enshrine the Department of Government Efficiency's acknowledgment that federal sprawl has become unmanageable. It proposes defunding environmental justice programs, trimming National Institute of Health and National Science Foundation budgets, slashing the Department of Education and eliminating corporate welfare masquerading as climate policy.

It also rightly calls for cutting the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities -- two anachronisms with no constitutional justification. Art and education don't need federal management; they need freedom.

The budget retreats from Washington's micromanagement of local affairs. Education grants, housing subsidies and green energy projects are best cut and handled by state governments or the private sector. One-size-fits-all federal fixes for everything from school lunches to water systems have failed. Devolving authority isn't just constitutional; it's practical.

But these trims are wrapped in a document that nevertheless sustains a bloated government. Even with the reductions, 2026 discretionary spending would remain essentially unchanged at $1.6 trillion. In some respects, the budget enshrines Biden-era spending.

Then there's defense. For all the "America First" rhetoric about maintaining a domestic focus, Trump's budget does nothing to rein in the Pentagon's fiscal free-for-all aimed at projecting power around the world. Quite the opposite: It proposes a 13% increase, pushing base defense spending past $1 trillion, including $892.6 billion in discretionary spending supplemented by $119.3 billion in mandatory spending and an additional $150 billion to be passed through Congress' reconciliation process.

The Pentagon remains the largest federal bureaucracy and among the least accountable. It hasn't passed a full audit since 2018, yet it gets a raise. If "peace through strength" means blank checks for defense contractors and redundant weapons systems, we need to rethink our definition of strength.

Consider the new F-47 fighter jet included in this budget. As Jack Nicastro notes in Reason magazine, this aircraft -- billed as the most advanced ever built -- is being developed to replace the F-35, which has been a taxpayer-funded boondoggle. So far, the F-35 has cost taxpayers more than $400 billion, far beyond the initial projected cost, and is expected to total $2 trillion over its lifespan. It's suffered from technical failures (including at some point having problems flying in the rain) and some doubt it will ever be fully functional.

Considering the government incentives that gave us the F-35 mess still exist, and given that aerial combat is shifting toward automated or remotely piloted systems, why would we believe our money will be better spent on the F-47?

Trump's budget also boosts Homeland Security spending, propping up another sprawling bureaucracy. The president's high-profile and problematic approach to deportation, while politically popular with his constituency, costs a lot of money. As the Cato Institute's David Bier notes, indiscriminate deportations risk shrinking the workforce, reducing tax revenue and undercutting economic growth -- all while ignoring the merit-based immigration reforms Trump claims to support.

Finally, there's the ever-present elephant in the room: entitlements. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid make up nearly 60% of spending and are the main drivers of our debt. Yet they are mostly untouched in the current fiscal sketch. The administration promises a more complete plan later to show where the savings would be found, but we've heard that before -- and House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Tuesday that Republicans would block some of the most effective approaches to cutting Medicaid. But the math is straightforward. Without serious entitlement reform, no discretionary spending cuts can avert a debt crisis.

The bipartisan failure to govern responsibly isn't just a policy lapse; it's a moral one. Deficit spending and the burden of debt repayment crowds out private investment, fuels inflation and burdens future generations with obligations they have no say over. The U.S. is on track to exceed its World War II-era debt record by 2029. If this budget is truly the plan to reverse course, we're in trouble.

Yes, the new Trump budget has bright spots, but those gains are neutralized by massive defense spending, costly immigration priorities and persistent gimmicks. At best, it maintains a flawed status quo. We don't need more of the same; we need evidence of a serious turnaround. Until that happens, we have little choice but to assume that Trump's budget is another big-government blueprint in small-government clothing.

Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

----